I think it depends on what the fight is for. fighting for the sake of fighting has no justification. Fighting to protect yourself or others or to prevent something bad from happening has justification.

It depends on the reason for the war. Sometimes it's necessary - the Second World War was necessary to bring down the Nazis, and in the aftermath things like human rights appear on the agenda.

Oher times, it's purely for political reasons (Iraq for example), which is just wrong.

I can tell this post was made awhile ago but I am still compelled to respond.

Indeed, while it is clear that the Bush administration knowingly and willfully presented counterfactual evidence to the American public while cherry-picking intelligence that fit their agenda [1] -- ignoring strongly worded dissents in the intelligence community -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not "wrong".

You mention that war is necessary in "the aftermath things like human rights..." I would agree. People look back with disgust with what happened in Rwanda, where 500,000 - 1,000,000 [2] people died in a genocidal mass slaughter in 1994. Yes, this is what happens when total isolationism is practiced and foreign military intervention is absent. But what about the people in the middle east who are suffering at the hands of islamic fascists? What about the girl who is convicted of a crime, then sentenced to being gang raped by the revolutionary guard and then, only that she is no longer a virgin, stoned to death. These islamic fascists leveled civil society in their own country and wish to do it to others.

Additionally, we signed the genocide treaty [3] with the UN, so even if you're indifferent to those suffering in the middle east we were obligated to intervene.

The liberation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were both necessary. If you're liberal and are worried about egregious human rights violations, by all means. If you a conservation, these islamic fascists are a direct threat to civil society not just in their country, but in our own [4][5].

-

To answer OP's question: War is sometimes necessary. I will say, however, while historically war could be profitable for the victors, now currently war is overwhelming bad for each side. The economic if the winner and the infrastructure of the loser are both heavily damaged; everyone is often worse off than they were before.

--
[1] - Hubris: the Selling of the Iraq War (2006) Michael Isikoff, David Corn.
[2] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13431486: " which estimates the number at between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Seven out of every 10 Tutsis were killed."
[3] - "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide New York, 9 December 1948". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights. Retrieved 2009-05-27.
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park)
[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Indeed, while it is clear that the Bush administration knowingly and willfully presented counterfactual evidence to the American public while cherry-picking intelligence that fit their agenda [1] -- ignoring strongly worded dissents in the intelligence community -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not "wrong".

Calling anything so complex and misunderstood as those wars "wrong" is difficult, but there are some things we can say. They were unprofitable, poorly planned, and ill received by most Americans and citizens of the world. They spawned great atrocities, and continue to be a source of division and hatred in the Middle East.

You mention that war is necessary in "the aftermath things like human rights..." I would agree. People look back with disgust with what happened in Rwanda, where 500,000 - 1,000,000 [2] people died in a genocidal mass slaughter in 1994. Yes, this is what happens when total isolationism is practiced and foreign military intervention is absent. But what about the people in the middle east who are suffering at the hands of islamic fascists? What about the girl who is convicted of a crime, then sentenced to being gang raped by the revolutionary guard and then, only that she is no longer a virgin, stoned to death. These islamic fascists leveled civil society in their own country and wish to do it to others. Additionally, we signed the genocide treaty [3] with the UN, so even if you're indifferent to those suffering in the middle east we were obligated to intervene.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with liberating the common people from tyrants, or saving hypothetical little girls. We are more than happy to tolerate tyrants that support our agenda. The slaughters in Rwanda and elsewhere prove that we do not go to war to save people, and have nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan regardless. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, and Iraq was a bonus for the war machine.

The liberation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were both necessary. If you're liberal and are worried about egregious human rights violations, by all means. If you a conservation, these islamic fascists are a direct threat to civil society not just in their country, but in our own [4][5].

What have we accomplished or gained in these countries that you deem "necessary"? The region is more unstable than ever. Iraq and Afghanistan are still war zones more than a decade after we arrived, and will stay that way long after we leave. All of this only serves to inspire more hatred and determination in these "Islamic fascists" that you're so afraid of. Imagine all the time, money, and resources we spent warring in the Middle East. Imagine if we had dedicated all of it to charitable causes. How much better would the world be now?

"Suppose there is an evil that justice cannot bring down. What would you do?
Would you taint your hands with evil to destroy the evil?
Or would you carry out your own justice and succumb to that evil?"

I think there are too many evil-doers to solve every violence with words. We need wars atm to keep a certain amount of oder in our world. At least till everbody is educated enough, so they wouldnt even think of violence.

But then there is the question again: If there is no war or bigger conflicts on our world anymore. Will people know what peace is and would they cherish it?

If it will save more lives or create better lives for everyone in the future then its a necessary evil, otherwise I am against it.

There is some anime that I watched I think that summed it quite nicely, I believe the statement was similar to save 1,000,000 in the future, or save one person now? Definitely not a direct quote since I don't even recall which anime that's from but I think it still gets my point across.

jeiziiwrote:
Lol, ok if you say so hahaha. I love how you use your 'qualification' just to prove your point. But ok, whatever you say commander.

I wish I was a commander, hell. That's some nice money. Live in nice base housing, have ensigns get me coffee? Retire, go write a book about my tour of duty, and play golf all day. Or maybe not golf. I suck at golf.

And I'm not going to argue with you however,I assure you my "qualification" is not terrorizing people. I blew something up once though....

My apologies, I didn`t mean to imply all soldiers... just many are a bit blinded by the reality of war.... I don`t understand why they think fighting is right.

I see the point you are trying too make, don't worry. And we signed on the dotted line. What we think is right and wrong sometimes gets a bit grey. Their will always be fringe that commit atrocities, and not for a common good (See, Abu Ghraib, or the Marine Snipers urinating on dead bodies). But I would be willing say MOST soldiers feel that while war is bad, they have a duty to uphold the "common good", and that what we are doing is the right thing. (Again, up to debate. That's another thread though). Sometimes, everything hits the fan, and all you can do is drudge along, trying to the right thing. For every crazy soldier that kills civilians, there are 20 more that assist in projects that hopefully impove lives. You of course don't hear about those...(whether or not should be there in the first place, again another thread)

At the end of the day, war sucks. Period. Necessity or not, the cost in lives will always be horrific. Things could always be done different, but hindsight is 20/20.

Those living in civilized, democratic countries seem to have a hard time understanding what it would be like to live, even a day, under a regime like Saddam's. The dead give away is always, "alright, yeah, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy." to which I have to say: no, you don't understand, you don't know anything. Those living in civilized democratic countries don't know what fascism feels like. They don't know what it's like to be forced at gunpoint to cheer the torture and execution of their family members. They don't know what it's like to see the execution of 180,000 (minimum) kurds murdered by poison gas [1] in the northern provinces of Iraq or an equal number of Shia arabs killed in southern Iraq [2].

kinga750wrote:
Calling anything so complex and misunderstood as those wars "wrong" is difficult, but there are some things we can say. They were unprofitable, poorly planned, and ill received by most Americans and citizens of the world. They spawned great atrocities, and continue to be a source of division and hatred in the Middle East.

I agree with you up until that last point. The wars, indeed, were poorly planned and generally poorly received. I made an explicit statement in my previous post any any modern war will be unprofitable; everyone will lose. But the statement: " They spawned great atrocities, and continue to be a source of division and hatred in the Middle East." Is ludicrous.

Spawned great atrocities? If the previously mentioned atrocities weren't bad enough, what about what UNESCO calls, "the greatest crime against the human ecology ever committed." [3] the destruction of the southern marshlands of Iraq. The destruction of which can be seen from space.

The welcome you see for American and British forces in parts of Iraq is worth mention, because political philosophers like Maureen Dowd will pretend like it never happens. Months after the invasion, people still lined the roads cheering coalition forces, especially in the south [4]. The children cheering, which is important because if the parents didn't want it, they would allow them to cheer.

The population hated Saddam Hussein; equally they feared him. These were people who were not just forced to obey, but made to applaud and demonstrate that they love him. If your kids were going to be executed you had to attend and applaud [4].

Spawned great atrocities? Yes. War is bad. But let's not turn a blind eye to the horror that existed in Iraq before and after the first gulf war.

kinga750wrote:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with liberating the common people from tyrants, or saving hypothetical little girls. We are more than happy to tolerate tyrants that support our agenda. The slaughters in Rwanda and elsewhere prove that we do not go to war to save people, and have nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan regardless. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, and Iraq was a bonus for the war machine.

Since the eviction of Saddam Hussein from Kurdistan I think we all came to the sobering conclusion that allowing Saddam to re-establish a genocidal fascist rule over the Iraqi people was wrong. It right to let the people the Iraqi live for 12 long years, suffering from sanctions. He should have been removed from power in 1992

I also think it's a contemptible statement to claim: "We are more than happy to tolerate tyrants that support our agenda." While American foreign policy practices have the bad habit of giving guns to people who will eventually use them against us, to claim, to put us on all fours with these fascists is despicable.

kinga750wrote:
What have we accomplished or gained in these countries that you deem "necessary"? The region is more unstable than ever. Iraq and Afghanistan are still war zones more than a decade after we arrived, and will stay that way long after we leave. All of this only serves to inspire more hatred and determination in these "Islamic fascists" that you're so afraid of. Imagine all the time, money, and resources we spent warring in the Middle East. Imagine if we had dedicated all of it to charitable causes. How much better would the world be now?

I think it's rather baffling that supporters of the regime change are the ones who have explaining to do. If you examine the record of the anti-war movement in this country, and imagine what would have happened if their council had been listened to you'd have a world where the following would be the case: Saddam Hussein would be the owner and occupier of Kuwait. In the meanwhile, Slobodan Milošević would have made Bosnia part of the greater serbia and would have been ethnically cleansed and annexed. The taliban would be still in power in Afghanistan; Al-qaeda would still be their guests. Saddam Hussein would still be the one in power in a country that is been described as a "concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath."

war. an everyday thing to me. you see blood and flesh on the streets, dead people. you dont see every person killed being shown in the news and maybe its not that big like world war 2 or the gulf war or such...but it's still war. sometimes it's not even war anymore, just plain massacre.

Most people view war as a very bad thing.
But in most cases it is...
You have to take it to the view point of the the people who are fighting...
One may view the war as a way to keep peace... When the other view it as a way to further the advancement of their control and/or expansion of their country. Or go a step further, to further their survival.
But remember, history will only remember the victors and their side of the story.